Superannuation Fund Investment Trust v. Commissioner of Stamps (S.A.)
Judges: Barwick CJStephen J
Mason J
Murphy J
Aickin J
Court:
Full High Court
Murphy J.: Whether or not the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust is ``the Commonwealth'' is not decisive of this case. The decision rests on three points. First, the Superannuation Act 1976 (Cth) evinces an intention that the Trust is liable to pay stamp duties under State laws on instruments to which it is a party. Section 45 of the Act exempts the income of the Fund from taxation under Commonwealth, State or Territorial laws. The implication is, therefore, that the Trust is liable to other forms of taxation. This is fortified by sec. 173(3) which provides that an instrument which an authorized person certifies to have been made executed or given by reason of, or for a purpose connected with, the operation of Div. 2 of Part XII (Transitional Provisions - Existing Superannuation Fund) is not liable to stamp duty.
Second, sec. 160(1) of the Act provides that ``The costs of the administration of this Act, including the costs of and incidental to the management of the Fund by the Trust, shall be paid out of moneys appropriated from time to time by the Parliament for the purpose''.
Any stamp duty payable is a cost of and incidental to the management of the Fund by the Trust. Section 160(1) shows that imposition of any such tax by a State is with the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. There is, therefore, no breach of sec. 114 of the Constitution, which provides that ``A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth,... impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth...''. Therefore, even if the Trust is the Commonwealth and the Stamp Duties Act 1923 (S.A.) as amended, imposes tax on its property, there is no breach of sec. 114.
Third, even if the Trust is the Commonwealth, there is no exemption provided for it in the Stamp Duties Act . The exemption in favour of ``His Majesty'' refers only to the Crown in right of, or the Government of, South Australia. I agree with what Mr. Justice Mason says on this aspect.
It follows that the appeal should be dismissed.
Disclaimer and notice of copyright applicable to materials provided by CCH Australia Limited
CCH Australia Limited ("CCH") believes that all information which it has provided in this site is accurate and reliable, but gives no warranty of accuracy or reliability of such information to the reader or any third party. The information provided by CCH is not legal or professional advice. To the extent permitted by law, no responsibility for damages or loss arising in any way out of or in connection with or incidental to any errors or omissions in any information provided is accepted by CCH or by persons involved in the preparation and provision of the information, whether arising from negligence or otherwise, from the use of or results obtained from information supplied by CCH.
The information provided by CCH includes history notes and other value-added features which are subject to CCH copyright. No CCH material may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy for your personal use only, provided you keep intact all copyright and other proprietary notices. In particular, the reproduction of any part of the information for sale or incorporation in any product intended for sale is prohibited without CCH's prior consent.
